zlacker

>>public+(OP)
I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role.

If you were arrested for robbery when you were younger perhaps because you had a drug addiction then that person should have a right to serve their time and change their ways later in life without the state holding and distributing that to any potential employer, practically ensuring that individual is unemployable for a mistake they made in their youth.

The reason I think this is not a good assumption to assume that someone will be a bad employee simply because they did something criminal in their past. There are terrible employees out there who don't break the law. If we're so concerned about employers hiring bad employees then state should instead build a centralised database of bad employees and their reason for termination at previous places of work. I'd argue this would be more effective if we're concerned an employer might hire a bad employee.

Secondly, making it difficult for those who have committed crimes to get back into the workforce increases their risk of reoffending. Having a good job and a nice life to lose is a great reason to not commit crimes while having nothing to live for is a great excuse to do whatever feels right in the moment.

Best of luck op. If I was an employer I'd consider you if you had the skills and seemed like you could do the job. I have no idea why your past would be relevant to your ability to work outside of select roles.

>>kypro+rK
> I know this is a controversial view, but I think employers should not be allowed to run background checks unless important for the role (government work, access to children, etc) and where it is important for the role it should only return the criminal convictions that might be relevant to the role.

This shouldn't be controversial at all and I think your take is 100% correct wrt exceptions (gov work, access to children etc). The very "Once a felon always a felon" thing going on in the united states is a secret life long sentence that completely defeats the idea of redemption.

>>vidoc+u71
It's not controversial, because we've twisted freedom of association, in places people aren't allowed to even have a "Ladies Night" at the bar, chose who the rent to, etc etc etc. Barry Goldwater absolutely and unequivocally warned us of this.

Now because that freedom of association, freedom to chose who you do business with does not exist, we think this is reasonable.

However, it is not. I own a business. I should not be required to hire anyone I do not want to. Full stop!

And it doesn't have to be a race card thing, Say I hate the Iraq war. Say I would like to never hire any veteran who contributed to the deaths of over 1 million Iraqi Citizens. Or say I worked with Iraq war veterans in the past and I hate their military attitude. I am not allowed to do so. If I bought a company, I would want to fire all veterans. No, you are not allowed to do so.

>>calvin+M71
I get that, but in this specific case it kinda sucks for you. We shouldn’t be making a system that penalizes offenders for life without explicit sentencing for such. Whether that information is useful to your business is relatively irrelevant to me because denying people proper employment does a lot more harm to them than the harm done to the people in businesses like yours by not penalizing them.

>>Briggy+4T1
But you don't get it. you think the government is required to play God in every aspect of the economy, clearly.

>>calvin+Io2
So true, that really is exactly what I’m saying by saying you shouldn’t be allowed to dig up whether someone has been convicted of a crime in the past when hiring them. If that‘s playing god, then slap a robe on me and call me father buddy. I mean the state is the one providing you with all that juicy hiring information in the first place. Perhaps this gives you an unfair advantage in the free market, and I’m just a concerned libertarian.